No. 53: European Bookbinding: 1500-1800 (Session II)

7 - 11 August 1995

For a description of this course, see under Course no. 42. The first session of this course (31 July - 4 August) is intended especially for bench-trained practitioners; this session of the course is intended especially for persons with a primarily historical interest in the subject, and who have not (necessarily) had bench training in bookbinding.

1. How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Those that I read were very relevant and interesting and just helped me to follow. I expect to benefit just as much, if not more, by continuing the list after the week. 2: Very useful, though very complex. I will have to read them again, now that I have a better background and grasp of the vocabulary. 3: They were useful. This usefulness will increase dramatically on another reading after the course. 4: Very helpful. 5: Very helpful, if somewhat limited (due to the nature of the subject). NP needs to write his book. 6: Useful, but rather difficult for a non-binder to digest (the two books were quite full of bookbinding jargon; the article was better). I dipped into them again yesterday and they were much easier to understand after a week of having these terms explained. 7: Very. 8: Quite. 9: Very. 10: Very helpful. 12: Very useful; would have been more so, given more time, but this is a matter of personal schedule.

2. Did your instructor prepare sufficiently to teach THIS course? Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class useful?

1: YES, definitely. And I expect all the diagrams and so forth to be of use in refreshing my memory after the event. 2: The instructor was well prepared. His knowledge is fabulous and personal collection of slides was a truly rich resource. 3: Yes. NP knows his stuff. His handout allows us to take away neat descriptions of basic binding techniques. 4: Extremely well prepared. Materials were useful in class and will be in the future. 5: The instructor is obviously a recognized expert in his field. His handout was very helpful. 6: Yes. 7: Yes, yes, yes. 8: Yes, I thought the handout was very good as the first time I took this course I attempted to write it all down. 9: Yes, very. 10: Yes, definitely. Very helpful handout which required a good bit of effort to put together. 11: Yes. 12: Preparation was first rate. Syllabus, handouts will be of permanent usefulness in my work.

3. Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?

1: [Check mark.] 2: Yes. It was challenging but understandable. 3: Yes, entirely. 4-6: Yes. 7: Above me. 8-11: Yes. 12: Very much. Level was high and time not wasted talking down or overexplaining. Questions were always welcome and well answered. More rather than less was expected in terms of class understanding, so I, at least, learned more by being stretched.

4. If your course had field trips, were they effective?

1: [Check mark.] 2: Yes. It would have been even better if students had been allowed more time to look at and even handle a volume or two. 3: We spent one afternoon in Special Collections. We were able to see some beautiful bindings in one piece, unlike many of the BAP examples. 4: Examining books in Special Collections was very useful and added much to the course. 5: Yes, very well spent. We actually could have used more time. 6: Yes. 7: Very well. 8: Yes. 9: Yes,except we were not allowed to touch the books, even though under supervision. This should be changed. 10: Yes. Don't imagine the Special Collections librarian will like my suggestion, but improved lighting in the area where we are looking at books would be a big improvement. 11: Yes. 12: Very well.

5. Did the actual course content correspond to its RBS brochure description and Expanded Course Description? Did the course in general meet your expectations?

1: Yes -- I had not realized it would be quite so devoted to structure, but -- after the week -- am very happy this was so. 2: Course content matched its description. I was disappointed by the absence of assignments to help me test my understanding. 3-4: Yes. Yes. 5: Yes. Exceeded expectations. 6: Yes. 7: More than. 8-9: Yes. 10: Yes and yes. 11: Yes. 12: I believe it was accurately described, but I had a vague expectation of more attention to decoration. I didn't read it that closely. No complaints, since I learned so much, and there is plenty of literature on history of decoration. I realized binding construction would be covered in depth, of course, and was at least equally interested in this.

6. What did you like best about the course?

1: Breadth of slides fascinating, and NP's obvious enormous breadth of experience and knowledge. Liked the way so much of what was said could be linked to examples both of slides and sometimes of books. Basically very impressed by NP's knowledge and communications, though at times a little frustrated. 2: The slides were excellent. The videos were enormously helpful in clarifying the meaning of the readings. NP's depth of knowledge was superior. 3: This course gave me a new way to look at books. We ignored textual context for the most part and looked at structure. This is new and exciting to me! 4: Slides with lectures and examination of actual books. 5: NP's depth of knowledge in the field is incredible. The slides were presented quickly, but informative descriptions were given (sometimes with wit and some humor) for all material. 6: Seeing the books and having them analyzed. 7: Felicity of expression in presentation -- no ah, ah; no stumbling. 8: I liked the slides and discussion of BAP collection books. 9: All the information. 10: The vast knowledge of NP and his eagerness to share it all with us. Thank you, NP! 11: Everything. 12: Hard to say. Abundance of superbly illustrative slides; clear explanations; humor.

7. How could the course have been improved?

1: With more opportunities for class participation (which might well not have worked with this course, which I suspect might have trivialized the intellectual content), I would have felt clearer in my mind about what I have learned. It is easier to learn if one is expected to re-create by questions, presentation, whatever. Also, I would have very much liked to handle the books to see for myself what was going on and thereby be much more able to recognize it in the future. 2: I would have gained more by being able to handle books (or more closely examine books held in a cradle) during the lectures, while they were still under discussion. Maybe each student could be given a book and do a short presentation on what is observed? Maybe small groups, if there are too few books in adequate condition? 3: The room felt cramped and uncomfortable after about an hour. 5: A manual or book to go along with the course. 6: Let the students attempt to evaluate books (type of sewing structure, &c.) by themselves as a homework assignment towards the end of the week and then have this checked by the instructor. 7: More text in handout. 8: I would like to handle some of the books personally, but I certainly understand why this can not be done. 9: At least one workshop-style session with small groups, supervised, looking at BAP books. 10: In studying structures, more hands-on accessibility would be desirable. I appreciatethe tired state of the bindings, but almost everything was red tagged and they were no-nos. Try to collect a shelf or two of bindings the class can handle. 11: It was a bit too fast for my understanding of the language. I was scared of missing or losing an important point in the very interesting information NP provided. 12: I don't know, unless perhaps (given near-impossibility of taking notes at the speed of the presentation) a handout highlighting national/period characteristics mentioned in the lectures.


8. Any final thoughts?

1: It was not that easy to mix with the other courses, and I would have found this interdisciplinary contact very interesting. Maybe this is just me, or it was just a factor of this week. If not, perhaps some central bar/coffee area available to all in the evenings might facilitate more of this contact and thought-provoking evenings/conversations, &c. 3: I would urge people to consider seriously the intensity of RBS courses before signing up for more than one week at a time. Two consecutive weeks of class is totally exhausting. I can't imagine doing three weeks as some did this year. 5: It is a bit like trying to take a drink from a fire hydrant, so be prepared for an onslaught of information (but well worth it). 7: If you do not have bench experience and need/want to know about your books' insides, come quickly. 8: This was my second time taking this course. The instructor has so much information and knowledge that I found the second time quite useful and indeed necessary for my comprehension of the subject. Perhaps offer, sometime in the future, an advanced class to those who have taken the first course. 9: Highly recommended. 10: Do your pre-course readings! 12: Thank you! On second thought -- I think the museum in Newcomb could be pushed more. I'm slow. I know it was mentioned at the beginning, but in the rush I forgot and almost missed it. As it was, I spent several hours there and learned almost as much as from the lectures.

Number of respondents: 12

Percentages

There were four rare book librarians (34%), three antiquarian booksellers (25%), two book collectors (17%), and one each a conservator/binder/preservation librarian, a general librarian with no rare book duties, and a general librarian with some rare book duties (8% each).